Crider et al v. Pacific Acquisitions & Associates, LLC

Filing 30

ORDER REQUESTING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Re: Dkt. No. 28 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 10/2/2015. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

RONNIQUE CRIDER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

v.
PACIFIC ACQUISITIONS &
ASSOCIATES, LLC,
Defendant.

15

Case No.14-cv-03498-NC
ORDER REQUESTING
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION FOR DEFAULT
JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. No. 28

16
17

The Court has reviewed plaintiffs’ memorandum of points and authorities in support

18

of their motion for default judgment. Plaintiffs incorrectly claim that “[a]fter a default is

19

entered, the Court’s attention is focused on issues relating to the damages, as opposed to

20

issues of liability.” Dkt. No. 28 at 3-4. The Court considers the following factors in

21
22

deciding whether to enter default judgment: (1) the possibility of prejudice to plaintiff; (2)

23

the merits of plaintiffs’ substantive claim; (3) the sufficiency of the complaint; (4) the sum

24

of money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning the material

25

facts; (6) whether defendant’s default was the product of excusable neglect; and (7) the

26
27
28

strong public policy favoring decisions on the merits. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470,
1471-72 (9th Cir.1986). Plaintiffs did not explicitly address these factors in their motion
Case No.:14-cv-03498-NC

1
2
3
4

and they should be prepared to address each at the hearing on October 7. Specifically,
plaintiffs should be prepared to clarify the following:
• Since plaintiffs only address 15 U.S.C. § 1692 in their motion for default
judgment, are they voluntarily dismissing their causes of action for violation of

5
6
7
8
9

the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and for intrusion
upon seclusion addressed in their complaint?
• Is there any remedy under Delaware law that could reinstate Pacific as a
corporation in good standing, and thus allow it to proceed in this action?

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

• Does the debt in question arise out of a transaction entered into for personal

12

purposes? This is a requirement for liability under 15 U.S.C. § 1692 and

13

plaintiffs have not provided facts related to the nature of their debt in their motion

14
or complaint.
15
16
17
18

• When Ronnique Crider told Pacific on the telephone and via fax not to contact
her at work, did Pacific know or have reason to know that Crider’s employer
prohibited her from receiving such contact? Or was the message simply that

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Crider did not want Pacific to contact her at work?
• Is there evidence that Pacific received Crider’s faxed letter in order to establish
liability under 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c)?
• Do any of the three exceptions to § 1692c(c) apply in this case?
• What constitutes “harassment” under § 1692d? Please provide authority.
• Please provide authority from the Ninth Circuit that supports plaintiffs’ claim for
maximum statutory damages.

28
Case No.:14-cv-03498-NC

2

1
2
3

• Please provide authority supporting plaintiffs’ claim for emotional distress
damages under the statute.
• Should this Court consider whether Pacific’s lack of good standing in Delaware

4
is the result of excusable neglect?
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: October 2, 2015

9
10

_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No.:14-cv-03498-NC

3